If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that posts from new users are now moderated. If you have just joined this forum and post a new message it will be held in the moderation queue until a member of staff approves it. Please be patient and our staff will review your submission as soon as possible.

Samuel Johnson vs Noah Webster

I remember reading somewhere that Johnson chose to spell certain words with an 'or' suffix and others with an 'our' suffix as a result of the etymology of the words; those of direct Latinate of Greek derivation present an 'or' suffix whilst those of direct French derivation present an 'our' suffix. Could any body confirm whether this is true or not because I have no idea where I read it! If it is true, then I find it rather surprising that there were no objections to webster's decision to overwrite the system when choosing to spell all 'our' words with an 'or' suffix. Thanks

re: Samuel Johnson vs Noah Webster

Well I hadn't heard this one. The Latin words for 'colour' and 'honour' are color and honor. I suppose it's conceivable that he adopted some arbitrary rule such as

"Latin -or → English '-our'; Greek -ωρ → '-or'

but I can't think of a Greek example (ύδωρ gives us lots of 'hyd-' words but not - as far as I know - *"hydor").

What I do know is that when Johnson jokingly defined 'lexicographer' as 'a harmless drudge' he was seriously (disingenuously?) underestimating the harm that a lexicographer can do; and that Noah Webster's keeping the endings for 'color' and 'honor' was etymologically justified.

b

PS I'm as British as the next man (as long as the next man is British ), but I rate Webster way above Johnson in the 'services to English' stakes, important though Johnson was in many fields.

re: Samuel Johnson vs Noah Webster

Webster's 1828 dictionary featured only -or and is generally given much of the credit for the adoption of this form in the US. By contrast, Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary used the -our spelling for all words still so spelled in Britain, as well as for emperour, errour, governour, horrour, tenour, terrour, and tremour, where the u has since been dropped. Johnson, unlike Webster, was not an advocate of spelling reform, but selected the version best-derived, as he saw it, from among the variations in his sources: he favoured French over Latin spellings because, as he put it, "the French generally supplied us."[24]